Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008

User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008

This is not an appropriate use of user space. It is nothing but a blog, basically. It's being spammed inappropriately through the user's signature. Wikipedia is not a place for a person to hold their political campaigns and recruit supporters or vice-presidents. Metros (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I tagged this for deletion, the user has gone and placed all the content of this subpage and put it to his user page. If this subpage is deleted, this should be reverted as forking deleted material. Metros (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep, No reason to delete this userpage since it isn't causing any problems. I think the user Metros is having a bad day.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy and does not affiliate any other political system. – NHJG 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not serious its just fun. I'm not advertising anything and I really don't expect anybody to vote for me. I am using it as my wikipedia identity and its purpose is to promote wikicohesion (WikiLove). I know Jimbo has promoted WikiLove and I thought he'd play along and say he was my "running mate". I am sorry.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; I don't see how this could be cohesive. I see potential potential for the opposite however, with several politically charged points. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How so?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It's part of the Wikipedia Department of Fun. It's just fun and games that aren't meant to be taken serious. Killing fun is the same as killing creativity. And 'spam'? He isn't really running for president. Go to vote! You'll see. No where on the ballot does it say "Uga Man." Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Write-in candidate. Besides that, that's not the point that the nominator (or myself) made. We're not taking it seriously... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Then why delete it?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the comment (if you want me to believe that you want to delete the page). Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It violates WP:NOT. This isn't a social networking site. And again, there are various potentially divisive statements on the department of education, recreational drugs, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Am I blind? I don't see the statements. Please point them out to me.Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Clearly he's removed them, which is a start. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see why it's a problem if someone uses his userspace for humor. Enigma ^msg! 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not asked to vote here or WP:CANVASSed. I found this on my own, and I find it ridiculous that people are voting to delete it. Enigma ^msg! 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless humor. henrik•talk 08:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't an article and serves to state a user's ambitions, even if they are tongue-in-cheek. That said, he didn't perform well in the debates....But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of [them]...Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate...Go ahead, throw your vote away! It's a user page for crying out loud and it isn't harming or disrupting anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I've said this countless times before, there's nothing wrong with harmless fun.   jj137 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as completely harmless, there are much more urgent issues we should be discussing than this one. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a social networking site, not collaborative, not helpful. Humor is all well and good, but only the general, universally-appealing kind, the kind that can go in Wikipedia: namespace. This page is more like a page of a personal website. It's not even funny... but even if it were, it would still just be a bit of personal creativity. Myspace stuff. Doesn't belong here. Yes there are other more important things to attend to, but that's neither here nor there. If we're having a delete discussion already, you might as well vote on the side of policy, if you're going to vote at all. The time is spent either way. Its level of importance in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:14, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Both Uga Man and Basketball110 have canvassed users to vote here. Uga's was a "please help" note to others which is contrary to wp:canvass. Basketball110's was neutral in tone, but it does appear that the users were selected based on their "friendship" with Basketball110, so, in theory, inclined to support what he thinks. Metros (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Basketball110 is also now thanking every person who has !voted "keep" in this discussion. Metros (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • • Talk to equazcion about why it's been taken out. Probably because you're asking two respected users on Wikipedia if they're bots or not for absolutely no logical reason. Metros (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
        • • If you're asking two users who are clearly not bots if they're bots just to prove a point, then you're wasting people's efforts. You can decide what title that awards you. Equazcion believes it's "troll", I'll reserve judgment. Metros (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've removed a troll-y comment left by Bastetball110 twice now - [1][2]. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:21, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • • • It's basically a blog. "Here's what I think about the world" is essentially what it is. Metros (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is what I think about the world is not inappropriate for a user page. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I removed the comments regarding Jimbo and the nonsense about the NBA and George W. Bush etc [3]. Please stick to actual, serious, relevant arguments. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:47, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have much of an opinion on the page (I haven't read it), but the canvassing on this issue kind of worries me.User:Basketball110 specifically mentions selectively canvassing users here, continuing here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Equazcion]] has been massively tampering with comments here, I suggets they are restored otr a report will be made and I'll restore them anyone. The word trolling comes to mind. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • By all means, make that report. Regarding the canvassing issue, it's pretty bad. It's not proper to coordinate a campaign to get more keep votes on this page. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:55, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      • • Concur with allegations of canvassing BB110, you shouldn't go around asking people for support for these issues. That said, I see nothing wrong with the above opinions and believe it fits with precedence and WP:USER. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I wasn't asking people to vote keep, I was just asking them what they thought. The first "canvassing" done was neutral. I asked what they thought of it. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Indeed, but you said yourself, when talking to User:Uga Man, "I've contacted some people who, just yesterday, told me that Wikipedia needs more fun and creativity. I know that they'll be on your side. ." (emphasis yours). You later discussed it as if it had been successful. You selectively chose people who you thought would suggest keeping (as the first link shows). Whether they did or not is irrelevant. It's an unacceptable form of canvassing. Imagine that I posted notification messages about this MfD debate to a group of people who, just yesterday, had told me that they were against pages on Wikipedia that aren't related to improving the encyclopedia. And then afterwards, I went to the nominator of this article, and told him that I had notified people who I knew were going to vote delete, and then later notified him of the number of delete votes resulting from my canvassing. It's pretty clear that I would be in the wrong by doing that, isn't it? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I have already made it clear that I am not editing this page any more. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's an imaginary presidential campaign he's not really even running he seems to be some crazy guy who thinks he's a presidential candidate this is all nonsense and needs to be deleted Charlieh7337 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's humor...if you don't get it, don't laugh (note that it states he is running for trash collector). — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I would just like to say that this is a joke. Uga Man isn't really running. Think of it as you will, but just know that it's not real. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep, but If you really don't like it, just request {{humor}} be added to it--Pewwer42  Talk  22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Added to prevent additional controversy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Equazcion. A great example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. JPG-GR (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read all of WP:NOT: "Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Equazcion. This applies. --Calton | Talk 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read all of WP:NOT: "Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The page doesn't refer to wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:55, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, The page does refer to wikipedia. Also, I'd like to thank everybody here that has supported me especially Basketball110. [The following is intended to be humorous] As of now I have captured over 50% of what has been dubbed the "Wikipedia Primary". Thank you to all my supporters. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I demand a recount. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Just throwing in the word wikipedia doesn't help too much. Things like Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man or Wikipedia:Rouge admin are fine because not only do they refer to and focus centrally on the Wikipedia, but they also have a point. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Eventually when I expand the article it will include my campaign to bring back WP:WikiMoney and other things. It already describes my past RFA, this page and the list of wikipedians who support me. This page is all about wikipedia.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ooooh, there's a great idea: Wikimoney...sheesh. I think I'll go and vote for the other guy...who is the other guy? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:KeepVote - This isn't serious, it's not in the article space, and it's not hurting anything by existing (no, not even disk space, considering the article is a mere 9,713 bytes). It seems petty to demand it be deleted when it's completely in jest. --clpo13_(talk) 06:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Do those !voting "delete" even recognize that this is in user space, not article or Wikipedia space? This is harmless fun. Of course this particular page is not vital to the project in itself, but having a site that allows editors to communicate with one another, in multiple ways, is. -Pete (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, note that this deletion debate is now far longer than the page in question, making this discussion more of a waste of time and editor energy than the subject it concerns. -Pete (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The waste of time the page caused wasn't in its length. Only the author wrote it, so no one wasted time with that. The disruption is apparently in the author's spam linking to it. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      • Understood, I did miss that before. Still, I think it would be more appropriate to require the user to stop including it in his/her signature, than to insist that the page be deleted. Interfering with content in user space strikes me as a pretty extreme step. -Pete (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • My apologies, that's actually my mistake. I was confusing two different delete discussions. The link in the author's signature might be a problem still, but that hasn't been the issue of this discussion up until now. The problem is a WP:NOT violation. Still though, the length of the page in question is irrelevant, as its length doesn't determine its level of appropriateness or disruptiveness. Many deletion discussions exceed the length of the page of which they're the subject. That's neither here nor there. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:11, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
          • All I'm saying, is that I find discussions like this more of a threat to the encyclopedia than pages in user space. But, you're right, that isn't exactly an argument in favor of keeping. I stand by my initial comment in that regard. WP:NOT needs to be interpreted with some sensitivity to context. User space is a very different thing than article space. Some humor and other social interaction is necessary to promote healthy collaboration; that doesn't make Wikipedia a social networking site. -Pete (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I think the value in these kinds on nominations is not merely to delete the particular page in question, but to remain vigilant in making sure Wikipedia doesn't turn into a social networking site. The page itself may be relatively harmless, but to allow such things in general sets a bad precedent. There's a larger goal in mind here. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:34, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
              • Well I can see that you've put some thought into it, and am happy to chalk this up as a difference of opinion between two people who are concerned about the project as a whole. With that in mind, I now regret my comment about the value of the discussion; sorry about that. -Pete (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
                • No harm done, your point was still valid. Though I still think this discussion is justified, the occasional reminder to weigh our responses in accordance with the problem never hurts. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:48, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Keep beyond the 'we don't like fun, i've yet to see a good reason for deletion. Any reading of more than the biggest fonts shows it to be humorous in nature and intent, so the whole 'OMGWTPREZ?NO,RLY?' thing is a no go. We permit Humor essays and such, so the 'no funnay' is out. This leaves 'User pages should not exist because all they do is let people tell us about them and that's not encyclopedic', aka the no userboxes argument writ large. ALso a no go, since many of the commenters here have user pages, and while Hypocrisy is the official diet of Wikipedia, it's not yet an official policy except for Admins and consensus. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - people wielding power just because they have it is so unattractive. Just Another Fat Guy (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To Thuranx, that's an oversimplification of the issue. Just because some types of humor are accepted doesn't mean that prohibiting other types makes us hypocrites. The humor itself really has nothing to do with the problem; any page that looks like a personal website page, outside of one that purely identifies the user in relation to Wikipedia, would have a similar problem. To "Just Another Fat Guy": Deletion nominations and their resulting discussions don't have anything to do with power. Anyone can nominate a page for deletion and in those discussions everyone has equal "power". Equazcion •✗/C • 23:39, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided, leaning toward no. Uga man has trolled on Wikinews in the past but it has since ended. I still don't think it's a page to have but I won't vote either way. trying to get people to interview him, and he was summarily denied twice, and then called various reporters names and deemed the site "lame." He's wasting everyone's time and it just needs to end. Mike H. Fierce! 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually that is not completely accurate, I did request an interview but have since given up, after that I have authored 4 published articles on wikinews. Using the word "trolled" is a misrepresentation and an attack on my character.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Which articles? Not that I don't believe you, I'm simply unaware of them. Mike H. Fierce! 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Former Senator Chafee endorses Barack Obama

Clinton's speech at St. Mary's University stirs debate over abortion

Former president Bush, Romney back McCain

NBA holds second annual NBDL All-Star game

I am proud of my contributions to wikinews and look forward to continue being a respected reporter there.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and crossed out my other statement. Mike H. Fierce! 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and nominate for deletion anyone's userpage who voted for delete if their page has ONE unnecessary (for creating an encylopedia) word. (And Uga Man, you have my vote in '08). Sethie (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A bit of harmless userspace humour. Joelster (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and record in central database of precedents for justifying future userpage-restriction-relaxing amendments to WP:NOT and WP:UP in accordance with Policy Change Source #1, "Documenting actual practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects practices." (I am such a metapedian!) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)